Peace Science Made Accessible, Understandable, and Useful.

Nonviolent Resistance and Government Repression

A greater number of resistance movements are choosing to adopt nonviolent forms of struggle as the effectiveness of nonviolent resistance becomes more widely known. At the same time, however, the success rate of these nonviolent movements is decreasing. What accounts for this lower rate of success, just as the effectiveness of nonviolent strategies is catching on? The author suggests that part of the answer lies in target governments becoming increasingly savvy in their responses to nonviolent movements, now that such movements are recognized to pose a real threat to their power. In light of this possibility, how can nonviolent resistance persist and succeed in repressive contexts?

The author begins by reviewing data on major episodes of nonviolent and violent contention over the 20th and early 21st centuries to discuss changes in the adoption and effectiveness of nonviolent resistance. She finds that, over the last several decades, there has been a substantial rise in the adoption of nonviolent resistance and a corresponding drop in the adoption of violent resistance in cases of anti-regime or self-determination struggles. This shift, she argues, is likely due to three factors: knowledge of the increasing effectiveness (until recently) of nonviolent resistance, the development of global norms regarding human rights and a related willingness to challenge tyrants, and technological advances that facilitate communication.

Turning to the question of effectiveness, the author notes that nonviolent resistance has been remarkably successful, achieving an average success rate of over 50% between 1940 and 2010 (compared to a much lower success rate for violent resistance). From 2010 to 2016, however, there has been a marked decrease in the success rate of nonviolent movements. She argues that this is not due to an increase in brutality against these movements; in fact, nonviolent resistance movements are actually much less frequently subjected to mass killings than violent resistance movements are (23% and 68% of nonviolent and violent campaigns respectively, 1955-2013), and this frequency has even declined over the last several years. However, more limited lethal violence is still very much a common response to resistance movements, including nonviolent ones, and its use has actually recently increased: 92% of nonviolent campaigns since 2007 experienced some form of lethal violence against them compared to 80% of nonviolent campaigns 1900-2006.

Lethal repression is just one of several tools that regimes have developed to counter nonviolent resistance movements, and the author suggests that it is the development of “more politically savvy” responses that may account for the recent lower success rate. These refined responses fall into three categories: “reinforcing the loyalty of elites,” “infiltrating and dividing opposition movements,” and “reinforcing public claims to legitimacy.” (See table.) Other possible reasons for the recent lower success rate include inadequate skills in nonviolent resistance strategy among the greater number of groups now adopting these methods; the higher percentage of predominantly nonviolent movements since 2010 nonetheless containing elements that “destroy property, engage in street fighting, or use lethal violence” (which diminish the distinct power of a nonviolent movement); and the greater skill with which governments have recently been able to keep security forces from defecting.

If “smart” repression does not work for the regime and escalates to mass killings, how can nonviolent movements persist or even succeed in highly repressive contexts? Although violent repression can sometimes have its intended effect of dampening a movement, violence against nonviolent movements can also backfire against the regime using it—galvanizing public support and participation and creating rifts within the regime itself. In addition, nonviolent movements/methods can overcome, resist, prevent, or protect people from violence in the midst of war or violent repression by pressuring the adversary to address grievances and resolve the conflict; rescuing or hiding those being targeted through a refusal to cooperate with the repressive regime (as happened during the Nazi Holocaust); accompanying or providing proactive presence for threatened activists or communities in war zones; or resisting local armed activity by carving out zones of peace.

The author also highlights ways in which activists can improve the ability of nonviolence to respond to and persist amid violence. One important way they can do this, according to Brian Martin whom the author cites, is to be strategic in the way they represent and publicize the actions of the movement in contrast to the actions of the regime to highlight the regime’s repressive methods. Another important way is for communities and movements to build their organizational capacity—and strengthen civil society institutions more broadly—as those that have greater capacity are more likely to be resilient. Finally, because security force compliance is so instrumental to a regime’s ability to carry out violent repression, including mass killings, foreign governments can help facilitate security force defections by making escape from the country less risky for those wishing to defect.

Methods of Authoritarian Adaptation Against Nonviolent Resistance

Strategies to Reinforce Elite Loyalty

Pay off the inner entourage

Co-opt oppositionists

Use public brutality against accused defectors to deter further defection

From Chenoweth, E. (2017). Trends in nonviolent resistance and state response: Is violence towards civilian-based movements on the rise? Global Responsibility to Protect, 9(1), 94.

CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE

In the first few months of 2011, during the so-called Arab Spring, it began to feel like anything was possible: first, Tunisia’s president Ben Ali stepped down, then after over two weeks of protest and repression Egypt’s president Mubarak stepped down, with throngs celebrating in Tahrir Square; there was even a brief glimpse of hope in Bahrain, Syria, and Libya, among others. But of these cases, Tunisia stands out as the lone country that has secured democratic gains from its nonviolent resistance movement. The other cases were less successful: for instance, one year after a democratically elected president took office, military rule returned to Egypt; Bahrain’s movement was unable to sustain itself in the face of severe repression; after persisting for quite some time in the midst of violent repression, Syria’s nonviolent movement was steadily over-run by an armed movement composed of defected Syrian soldiers, leading to the civil war that has brought massive destruction to that country over the past six years; and threats of mass killing in Libya in response to its uprising resulted in NATO military intervention, the death of Qaddafi, and subsequent widespread instability and violence, providing a haven for the extremist group ISIS. These cases all have a bearing on the recent finding that nonviolent resistance—though still more effective than violent resistance in achieving its goals—is becoming less reliably effective. The fact that leaders may be learning about nonviolent resistance, noting its effectiveness, and adapting their responses when targeted by such movements means that nonviolent activists must stay on their toes and maintain versatility in their own adaptive responses. It also provides an unsettling illustration of the way in which academic research and its objects of study are deeply intertwined, with the researcher potentially influencing the phenomenon being studied in unintended ways—such as when research on the operation and effectiveness of nonviolent resistance may better inform the strategies of governments who wish to counter such movements.

TALKING POINTS

More resistance movements are choosing to adopt nonviolent forms of struggle as the effectiveness of nonviolent resistance becomes more widely known.

Since 2010, the success rate of nonviolent movements—though still higher than that of violent movements—has decreased dramatically, partly due to target regimes’ use of increasingly savvy responses.

Contrary to popular belief, nonviolent resistance movements are subjected to mass killings much less frequently than violent resistance movements are.

There are multiple ways nonviolent movements/methods can overcome, resist, prevent, or protect people from violence, including “political jiu-jitsu”— when violent repression against a nonviolent movement backfires against the regime using it.

Nonviolent activists can strengthen a movement’s ability to withstand and lessen the chances of violent repression by strategically publicizing the contrast between their own actions and those of their opponent, strengthening organizational/civil society capacity, and taking measures to facilitate security force defection.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

If targeted regimes are adapting their responses to be more effective against usually highly effective nonviolent resistance movements, nonviolent activists (and scholars of nonviolent action) will have to devote even greater attention to studying these more politically savvy techniques and how they might be confronted more successfully. This study already suggests three possible approaches for at least persisting amid such violence, or even trying to prevent further violence: strategically publicizing the contrast between the activists’ own actions and those of their opponent to highlight the repressive nature of the opponent, building organizational/civil society capacity for greater resilience, and taking measures to facilitate security force defection. These suggestions are consistent with other recommendations of scholars such as Burrowes, Chenoweth & Stephan, Nepstad, and Schock for how to make a nonviolent movement succeed: consider those actions—including the creation of a mass, broad-based movement—that will strengthen the will and capacity of the nonviolent movement to persist (even in the face of repression), while weakening the will and capacity of the opponent to do so (including by creating cracks in the opponent group, especially security forces). What this means in terms of relations with security forces might be counterintuitive: rather than seeing and treating soldiers and/or police as the “enemy,” nonviolent movements should find creative ways to engage them and to draw many of them to the side of the movement, something facilitated by the movement’s maintenance of nonviolent discipline.

02

03

Social

Testimonials

Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D.

The field of peace science has long suffered from a needless disconnect between current scholarship and relevant practice. The Peace Science Digest serves as a vital bridge. By regularly communicating cutting-edge peace research to a general audience, this publication promises to advance contemporary practice of peace and nonviolent action. I don’t know of any other outlet that has developed such an efficient forum for distilling the key insights from the latest scholarly innovations for anyone who wants to know more about this crucial subject. I won’t miss an issue.

-Erica Chenoweth: Professor, Associate Dean for Research at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver

David Cortright, Ph.D.

The Peace Science Digest is a valuable tool for translating scholarly research into practical conclusions in support of evidence-based approaches to preventing armed conflict.

-David Cortright: Director of Policy Studies at the Kroc Institute of International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame

Ambassador John W. McDonald, ret.

This Magazine is where the academic field and the practitioners meet. It is the ideal source for the Talkers, the Writers and the Doers who need to inform and educate themselves about the fast growing field of Peace Science for War Prevention Initiatives!

Kelly Cambell

As a longtime peace activist, I’ve grown weary of the mainstream perception that peace is for dreamers. That’s why the Peace Science Digest is such as useful tool; it gives me easy access to the data and the science to make the case for peacebuilding and war prevention as both practical and possible. This is a wonderful new resource for all who seek peaceful solutions in the real world.

Michael Nagler

We must welcome the expansion of peace awareness into any and every area of our lives, in most of which it must supplant the domination of war and violence long established there. The long-overdue and much appreciated Digest is filling an important niche in that peace invasion. No longer will anyone be able to deny that peace is a science that can be studied and practiced.

-Michael Nagler: Founder and President, Metta Center for Nonviolence

Aubrey Fox

The Peace Science Digest is the right approach to an ever-present challenge: how do you get cutting-edge peace research that is often hidden in hard-to-access academic journals into the hands of a broader audience? With its attractive on-line format, easy to digest graphics and useful short summaries, the Peace Science Digest is a critically important tool for anyone who cares about peace as well as a delight to read.

Joseph Bock, Ph.D.

How many times are we asked about the effectiveness of alternatives to violent conflict? Reading Peace Science Digest offers a quick read on some of the best research focused on that important question. It offers talking points and summarizes practical implications. Readers are provided with clear, accessible explanations of theories and key concepts. It is a valuable resource for policy-makers, activists and scholars. It is a major step in filling the gap between research findings and application.

-Joseph Bock: International Conflict Management Program Associate Professor of International Conflict Management, Kennesaw State University

Eric Stoner

The distillation of the latest academic studies offered by the Peace Science Digest is not only an invaluable time-saving resource for scholars and policymakers concerned with preventing the next war, but for journalists and organizers on the front lines, who can put their findings to good use as they struggle to hold the powerful accountable and to build a more just and peaceful world.

-Eric Stoner: Co-founder and Editor, Waging Nonviolence

Mark Freeman

The Peace Science Digest is a major contribution to the peace and security field. It makes complex issues more understandable, enabling professional outfits like ours to be more effective in our global work. The Digest underscores that preventing war is about more than good intentions or power; it is also about transferable knowledge and science.

Maria J. Stephan, Ph.D.

The Digest is smartly organized, engaging, and provides a nice synthesis of key research on conflict, war, and peace with practical and policy relevance. The journal’s emphasis on “contemporary relevance”, “talking points” and “practical implications” is a breath of fresh air for those of us trying to bridge the academic-policy-practitioner divides. Highly recommended reading.

-Maria J. Stephan: Senior Advisor, United States Institute of Peace

David Swanson

Peace Science Digest is an invaluable tool for advocates for peace, as much as for educators. In it one quickly finds the talking points needed to persuade others, and the research to back those points up.